29 minutes ago, gadwag said:

Let this thread henceforth be about all 2-agility ships with 5-6 health.

hehe...

23 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

But always being able to have a focus for those 2 green dice, plus always have a shot,

I'm not seeing the always part.

Linked rotate->Focus is nice, but at initiative 2 you're going to get much better time on target with a dorsal aggressor's 180 degree arc.

The HWK has excellent action and upgrade bars, but it is not an efficient generic filler ship. If you think it's a good deal at 30pts, I suggest you try out the aggressor with dorsal or ion turret - you might be pleasantly surprised.

32 minutes ago, gadwag said:

Linked rotate->Focus is nice, but at initiative 2 you're going to get much better time on target with a dorsal aggressor's 180 degree arc.

Or I1 with no access to Leia who is the key to @theBitterFig 's "fun" build... Still 30 pts...

I think the HWK and Gunrunner are great examples of why the Aggressor is good.

As is this table:

I compared 2.0 cost for a bunch of pilots that were pretty similar to their 1.0 version, with a little bit of ballpark adjustment where appropriate for things like important linked actions, stat changes etc.

Its not the same thing as a power level guide as obviously the starting point for power level in 1.0 wasn’t the same. But I think it gives some good insights anyway.

9 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

I'm not seeing the always part.

Well, it's the always of conversation.

To be sure, you have to anticipate, but with a bit of that, it's not too hard to get a tonne of shots that most other ships couldn't get.

7 hours ago, gadwag said:

If you think it's a good deal at 30pts, I suggest you try out the aggressor with dorsal or ion turret - you might be pleasantly surprised.

That's what I've been saying the whole thread. =P

Aggressors and HWKs and naked TIE/sf. =D

7 hours ago, gadwag said:

The HWK has excellent action and upgrade bars, but it is not an efficient generic filler ship.

I guess part of my point is that time-on-target can allow something to go beyond the efficiency. And I'm not quite saying HWKs are secret top-tier ships, just that they're way better than they'd look like they are.

7 hours ago, gadwag said:

Linked rotate->Focus is nice, but at initiative 2 you're going to get much better time on target with a dorsal aggressor's 180 degree arc.

The HWK has excellent action and upgrade bars, but it is not an efficient generic filler ship. If you think it's a good deal at 30pts, I suggest you try out the aggressor with dorsal or ion turret - you might be pleasantly surprised.

The HWK does has a small advantage of the turret going out to range 3, and access to Leia or Drea. Whether that outweighs the advantage of a front arc, I don't know.

15 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

That's what I've been saying the whole thread. =P

Apologies, I got confused about who was making what argument in the initial comparison between aggressors and triple ace lists. (I think it's wrong to say aggressors are worse than triple aces, but most imperial players are in the faction for aces, not tanky turret ships, which is why aces are preferred).

14 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

The HWK does has a small advantage of the turret going out to range 3, and access to Leia or Drea. Whether that outweighs the advantage of a front arc, I don't know.

Adding a full front arc is a lot better than adding a range 3 band to the turret. As for support, aggressors have access to Howlrunner

8 hours ago, gadwag said:

Apologies, I got confused about who was making what argument in the initial comparison between aggressors and triple ace lists. (I think it's wrong to say aggressors are worse than triple aces, but most imperial players are in the faction for aces, not tanky turret ships, which is why aces are preferred).

No worries, hence smileys. Particularly don't worry, since I have also made an argument that aces kinda crowd out generics like Aggressors. It's hard to pin down exactly how much of that is power vs perception, but the results are kinda the same.

As to my pro-turret leanings, mostly what I've been saying in this thread is that, when folks say "There's no point to the Aggressor since it's a worse TIE Bomber" I keep saying "But Turrets!" Turrets are a worthy end in themselves.

Here's a stream of me dismantling some decimators with an aggressor list, thus proving for all time that aggressors are actually great /s

https://youtu.be/3mZxSFsPsus?t=1443

Turns out, lots of guns with high time on target isn't terrible.

On 7/9/2020 at 4:28 AM, Stay OT Leader said:

I noticed something wrong with this table here (unless I'm missing something). The rank 1 Inquisitor didn't have an equivalent in 1st Edition, so I don't know how we got the 1.0 base price.

Dave said he fudged the numbers a bit so he probably added a bit to the old baron price to estimate what a quiz would be. Linked actions weren't there either in 1.0 - this is approximate

Its what @gadwag said. Over on the rightmost column is the adjust factor, which was +14pts for the Inquisitor. That breaks down into:

+6pts for good linked actions. It’s not as good as a full Push The Limit but PTL was likely undercosted anyway.

+8pts for a single force point

Its all really subjective but that’s the reasoning behind it 🙂

never mind!

5 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

+6pts for good linked actions. It’s not as good as a full Push The Limit but PTL was likely undercosted anyway.

I'm curious. Did you bring in to account things like the TIE/v1 or Concord Dawn Protector titles? Concord Dawn is now baked into to Fenn and the Fangs, and TIE/v1 essentially had 1 point (2 points in 2nd) PTL with Lock + Evade.

I apologize for my over-criticality, I just want to understand the methodology.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

I'm curious. Did you bring in to account things like the TIE/v1 or Concord Dawn Protector titles? Concord Dawn is now baked into to Fenn and the Fangs, and TIE/v1 essentially had 1 point (2 points in 2nd) PTL with Lock + Evade.

I apologize for my over-criticality, I just want to understand the methodology.

When it got you closer to the 2.0 ship I included it (like Concord) but if not (like v1) I didn’t.

3 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

I'm curious. Did you bring in to account things like the TIE/v1 or Concord Dawn Protector titles? Concord Dawn is now baked into to Fenn and the Fangs, and TIE/v1 essentially had 1 point (2 points in 2nd) PTL with Lock + Evade.

This reminds me that I'm kind of sad you can't link a Lock into a red Evade on TIE/v1s in 2e, just in a thematic sense, but I know that it's for the best in terms of balance that we can't.

On 7/24/2020 at 12:25 PM, theBitterFig said:

This reminds me that I'm kind of sad you can't link a Lock into a red Evade on TIE/v1s in 2e, just in a thematic sense, but I know that it's for the best in terms of balance that we can't.

might be cute on non-vader Tie /x1 (though evade -> red lock would be better for passive sensor purposes), but there's the vader problem again though its a problem for 3.0 to solve

TIE Aggressors at Dathomir in the Top 32:

They did go down 1 point in the previous update, but at 29 points, all it would take is swapping one Aggressor for a regular TIE to make the list work out, or switching Feroph for Vizier.

My guess is that a lot of it comes down to ti me -on-target being a lot stronger than folks realize . See also 5 RZ-2s and Nantexans.

Raw numbers for a Dorsal Aggressor don't seem super high, but that's based perceptions of how a front-arc-only ship behaves. Extra arcs really inflate things.

17 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

ti me -on-target being a lot stronger than folks realize

^^ I've won a couple of games where my 4 ion aggressors never ionised an enemy ship.

Maybe people will stop saying they're terrible now.

7 hours ago, Rossetti1828 said:

^^ I've won a couple of games where my 4 ion aggressors never ionised an enemy ship.

Maybe people will stop saying they're terrible now.

I doubt it. The more salty TIE aggressor players that I have talked too (which isn't that big of a sample size to be honest) are the inverse of the rza-1 crowd. They want Lt Kestral to be this awesome anti ace tool instead of running generics. Where as some the Rebel A wing guys are irked that the generics are lousy even though they have viable limited pilots. These ships have been designed to fill certain roles and it is really frustrating for those players when the ship doesn't work the way they need it to. Granted I do think the A-wing guys have a much better chance of getting what they want.

I was happy to see the aggressor do well!

I'm hoping suppressive gunner will help. I intend to use it when it comes available outside of the laat.

1 hour ago, reqent said:

The more salty TIE aggressor players that I have talked too (which isn't that big of a sample size to be honest) are the inverse of the rza-1 crowd. They want Lt Kestral to be this awesome anti ace tool instead of running generics. Where as some the Rebel A wing guys are irked that the generics are lousy even though they have viable limited pilots.

Really interesting dynamic, actually.

I'm kind of an Aggressor booster, since I think time-on-target is really good (a lesson learned by flying TIE/sfs), and don't really care about Kestral or Double Edge. I guess I think of that as silly jank, and don't care if silly jank is bad.

With A-Wings, having unplayable generics really irks me. I guess it's just the knowledge that a lot of folks like spamming generics (or just mixing in a few generics into a standard list), and it'd be nice if they weren't the worst possible way to fly the ship.

Told ya!

On 6/29/2020 at 12:15 PM, FastWalker said:

What about a Sloane swarm with Tie Aggressors? What I like to call "Aggressive Sloane". I got 3 list variations containing Tie Reaper, Lambda Shuttle or Decimator. Lots of room to play with. Share with the group your list suggestions.

@FastWalker pretty nearly found the list, too.